#they're just being shitty morals capitalists

[kedreeva]

did you read the CNBC article "Egg prices rose 60% in 2022. One farm griup claims it's a 'collusive scheme' by suppliers"? Given how knowledgeable you are about your own birds, I'm interested to hear your thoughts! I particularly found it weird in the inflation numbers comparison where eggs went up by 59.9% in December while the "poultry" category only went up by 12.2%. Doesn't that seem counter-intuitive since it takes much longer to raise meat vs eggs even with the flu? I'm not trying to grill you at all I just like your blog and would like to see your thoughts on it :)

I have no idea why you think eggs take a shorter time, but meat birds are ready for butcher at 6-8 weeks old, and egg birds are a minimum of like 4 months, if not 6-10 depending on breed.

Don't listen to people (general) on farm groups. I'm in several, and day in and day out I see some real hot takes on stuff and a lot of people who either don't know what they're doing or are doing stuff that's like, actively harmful. The people that know what they're talking about burn out trying to argue with the people that are Very Convinced that they're right as they say the most wrong things. I'm locked in combat to the death in one group over the people there using the phrase "fertile but not fertilized" to describe an infertile/unfertilized egg. There's literally no such thing as "fertile but unfertilized." An egg is infertile or fertile, or it's unfertilized or fertilized. But by golly you cannot convince them this is the case, even directing them to google to check for themselves. I've seen med recs for overdoses and underdoses. I had one lady tell me she poured some injectable meds under her bird's wing, and flat out refuse to give more via injection or buy the pour-on version because didn't "want to overdose him." MA'AM you didn't DOSE him!!! What you did was the equivalent of pouring cough syrup on your hand. I chased my own tail for WEEKS with a lady that INSISTED 12 accidental fires in a single year, across all the farms in the US (you know, the 2.5 million farms in the US), meant that there was a government conspiracy to cause a food shortage, and that's why she kept chickens. You might be able to find A Person on those groups that knows anything correct, but the groups at large are often not great for anything other than sharing cute pics and finding homes for excess birds.

Now don't get me wrong, if a company CAN charge a little more for something and get away with it, they're probably gonna try, and I'm sure that some of that is involved, in some places more heavily than others. But also we lost almost 58 MILLION chickens, a lot of them egg layers, to HPAI last year, from around march to june (like, for reference, the US has about 300 million egg-type production birds, across ages). There's also a higher cost in fuel, and likely an unwillingness to hire people who have standards about how they're treated factoring in. Given the processing/shipping/distribution time and the requirements (including the cost of materials, testing, cleaning, disposal etc) of sanitizing land and having to let it sit for a period before being able to resume production, that lag and then sept-dec 2022 zone was exactly where I expected the price rise to happen, and at least from what I've seen, it's already coming back down (from $6 to $4 around me anyway) as those lost facilities have reached laying ages. I expect it will keep going down, provided HPAI doesn't devastate the industry again this year.

If you want a visual representation of what the fuck happened last year, here's from the USDA:

So no, I don't think it's weird and also I don't think it's a conspiracy. Shit just happens sometimes, and instead of taking the hit to their profit, they took it out of egg prices because they had an excuse to raise them to cover costs and possibly make extra while people were tolerant. That's not really a conspiracy in my book, it's just capitalizing on a thing that happened. you know. like capitalists.

[unicornachos]

Getting tired of seeing gotcha posts on Tumblr lately shitting all over vegans. They've gotten more common over the past few years...

Usually it'll be a post criticising a choice like maybe 3% of vegans actually make, or more usually an imaginary vegan they've pulled from thin air based on their own stereotypes and assumptions, followed by vibes along the lines of' "I know better, actually you don't care about sustainability or human rights at all! You're completely uneducated about (insert any topic here). Gotcha! Who's the morally superior one now, huh" Followed swiftly by the implication that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, so why try at all.

Like yeah maybe there are some young idiot vegans who think buying pleather boots is ok for the environment, but every vegan I've ever met is more likely to get a second-hand pair of leather boots at an op-shop, because it's better for the environment. Every vegan I know has cared immensely about issues with soy and quinoa, about where their food comes from, about water use and microplastics, who picks their fruit and veg, and human rights in general. More than any non-vegans I know.

So why are we still constantly berated for not doing every single other thing that non-vegans want us to do? It's starting to feel like people have a very specific idea of vegans in their heads and need an outlet for weird anger and misery and frustration, and we're an easier punching bag than the large corporations and governments who dictate the rules of our late-stage capitalist hellscape, so why not have a go?

It really feels like people are unconsciously mad with themselves that they can't do more to help the world and possibly have unexamined issues or guilt with consuming animals themselves, and feel better about themselves after telling vegans they're just not doing their activism hard enough, and that everything they buy from the grocery store is a human rights violation, so really you're just as bad as the rest of us.

Idk man I just. It really feels like a lot of whataboutism most of the time from non-vegans who have a weird, skewed view of militant white vegans, while the majority of vegans (who aren't all white, might I add) are just living their lives, trying to make the world a slightly less shitty place. We should absolutely criticise racist white vegans. Take them the fuck down. I don't think you think vegans are who you think they are, though. Vegans are from intersecting identities just like everybody else, and come from many different countries. And also there are some silly, uninformed vegans with misplaced ideas, just like there are silly, uninformed non-vegans with misplaced ideas. But if you imagine a vegan to be someone you'd hate, it's a lot easier to ridicule them to make you feel like you're right and good.

I just wish that the people who make these posts and the folks who join in and/or reblog, would take a look at themselves and think about what they themselves are doing to prevent cruelty in this world, in any shape or form. Like are you painstakingly making sure you're not buying clothes with plastic in it? Are you checking the label of every food item you buy to make sure you knew where it came from? Do you only buy your veg from local farms within 10km or only eat things from your own garden? If not, idk what to tell you, but it's probably that you should give vegans a break if you're not doing all the very things you tell us we should be doing.

It just feels like a lot of misplaced anger. Why are you so, so enraged at vegans not being perfect people when you could be going and protesting outside the farms of migrant workers, if you're so pissed about where our fruit and veg comes from? If you're mad about fruit and veg, wait till you hear of the human rights abuses in abattoirs.

When someone tells a vegan that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism, it just feels like a cop-out. You're not trying so why should anyone else, right? I just think people should be allowed to try to make the world better in their own ways, and not be ridiculed for not living up to an unattainable standard set my non-vegans.

Being vegan is about doing the least harm you can, within your means. It's not an on-off switch- it's a sliding scale of effort to do less harm. It's not stupid to acknowledge unnecessary suffering and choose not to take part in what's within your means to abstain from. Some vaccines still use animal products. Some of my medication has animal product ingredients. Am I going to go off my meds and become an anti-vaxxer? No. Do I think Indigenous Peoples should stop eating the foods they have always eaten, often for tens of thousands of years before colonisation? Of fucking course not. It's possible try to unsubscribe to shitty things in this world without doing it perfectly. The whole world would be a lot better if most people consumed 70% less animal products, than 2% of the world doing veganism perfectly.

I think most non-vegans are too afraid of what they might find out if they actually research animal agriculture so they stubbornly make excuses not to bother. So that's their choice, but until you're as perfect as how you claim we should be, literally shut the fuck up and find something more productive to do with your time, like actively try to fight against the very things you think we've all somehow decided to turn a blind eye to. Because I bet the majority of people consuming whatever unethical product you've decided on aren't vegans.

Coming across one silly vegan on the internet doesn't mean you have permission now to write off the crucial need for our planet to massively reduce animal agriculture, and the possibility that you might potentially be able to opt out of it. Criticising veganism doesn't mean you've absolved yourself of any harm you yourself are doing, and also doesn't absolve you of finding ways to do less harm to people, animals, and the planet.

And if you're pissed about vegans having moral superiority, I'd really like to see non-vegans examine their own moral superiority they seem to feel they have over vegans.

Ok signing off lol

[yeetspace]

"bad people age worse" is a mean and shitty take that only plays into eugenicist ideas of "appearance/ability = moral worth." you're not being progressive claiming good people age better. hard work ages the body. stress ages the body. tons of good people never make it to old age due to the stresses of poverty. tons of cruel people reach old age due to the privileges of wealth granting access to better food, better rest and medical care. PLEASE stop spreading the idea of moral failings corrupting appearance, it has no basis in science and rebranding eugenics in a fun little leftist hat is an asshole move

This is pure fucking waffles and pancakes type shit like what the fuck do you want me to say? Cuz I fully agree with you and if something was said in passing that vaguely alluded to that idea that I don't even believe, let alone believe I've said this in the first place and if so I apologize as I fully know that the appearance of one person is not indicative of anything as that's just how the person was born. Literally just as simple as this, I don't believe this so blame the society that cultivated my language to make what IG must've been a phrase that most likely was said in passing that just inherently relies on the ableism? The thing I also feel every day?

It's very obvious by the politics I espouse I agree with you so I have literally no fucking knowledge of ever equating age of bad people and aging badly. The only concept that I've said that's vaguely like that that you might have misinterpreted as such is I don't even know because I don't think I've mentioned anything like that but like:

Bad people literally physically end up looking younger and better with age because of the resources they garnered through that kind of vile mindless gain that bad people get because all bad people are capitalists at the very least, and then separately because they don't have all that stress of worrying about what the fuck the bad people are doing because THEY'RE the bad people doing those things causing stress so they just get to have fun about it. I literally look like I'm fucking like mid-twenties I'm not even 20 YET. So yeah I know And agree with you on it so I don't know what the fuck you're on about. I'm just coming back to you with the exact same energies I'm feeling like I'm getting here

[alexandraisyes]

Who is the main villain/villains in all your TSAMS AUs?

Ohhh that's tricky because not every story has a villain. Antagaonist? Sure, but nothing is ever black and white. However I'll indulge you.

Highly Unconventional: Moon is probably who I would label as the main antagonist, even if it wasn't on purpose, he did still kill Sun's cats. He's an asshole, but he was trying so hard to be patient and understanding. Everyone has their limits. Later on, we have an actual villain, but that's private information for now.

Sinker AU: Whaling and major fishing companies. There's not a selective villain, it's just the corrupt capitalistic assholes who hunted most local mers to extinction. That and the corrupt upper class who specifically put out bounties for mers to keep as "pets".

Twisted Celestials: There really isn't one here, unless you want to consider the environment the main antagonist haha. Actually, probably Lunar. He's a little bit too possessive of Eclipse. Not really his fault, but it does cause a lot of head ache and doesn't get better until KC.

Cage AU: Eclipse. Eclipse for reasons I cannot utter on this account. Eclipse for reasons that break my fucking heart (in the best way possible) because he's my favorite. Fucking Eclipse.

R E S E T: Monty. He's the one who started everything, he's the one who refuses to change after seeing how much he's hurt everyone.

TSBS Hunger Games: Honestly there's a lot of "minor villains" but they're all just trying to fucking survive. The main bad guy is the Creator, since he runs the whole thing

Human/Family AU: Shitty parents who leave their kids for drugs 👍

Drowning: Eclipse and Moon. *Checks notes* Nevermind just Moon for cheating on Eclipse and being an absent husband fr fr (God drowning is the au i need to rot about more it's so detached from canon you wouldn't even know I was inspired by tsams)

Friends AU: Probably the Creator, since everyone is chill in this AU fr. Maybe the corporates running Fazbear.

Supernova: Oh god there's just so much in this one I'm not getting into it or we'd be discussing moral intricacies all night

Errors in Resentment: Probably Moon for being an asshole and attacking Ruin likeeee wtf Moon bro was just minding his business fr

[mahoushoujotechsupport]

finally have time to continue my rewatch and its the bob episode

this episode really raised my expectations for the show in a way it never delivered so idk that there'll be much to say unless i see random stuff that ended up tying in later

now that the show is over i kinda feel like this episode was unnecessary lol it should have been a half ep if all it was gonna do was push guel back to space. it should have been an episode where the audience is made to sympathize with the plight of earthians more given what was to come and from what we see in the episode itself, but from the posts i saw around the internet between when the episode aired even up until now, a lot of people did not care for the earthian struggle and some even called them stupid. i'm sure that's just a ton of outspoken reactionaries but i wish they could have done more with this plotline

instead we get this idiot full on stockholm syndroming over his abusive father. guel could have had a clean break from everything. hell, he could have continued being a shitty capitalist but yknow maybe not be a war profiteer.

anyway, this ep marks our first opening change with eri's silhouette finally revealing her datastorm form

i love nika's character but lol i'll always side with norea on this issue. nika's idealism is noble, but it just doesnt work irl. and her saying that dawn of fold is causing suffering is so laughable when spacians and the benerit group are literally foaming at the mouth for profit at each new conflict on earth that they can provide weapons to

sabina-sama, my beloved

yea amerikkka sucks, norea, i agree

lol capitalists are so goddamn stupid

the depressing thing about this line is how so many things work like this irl and capitalists don't care that eventually profits will come down to a trickle becuase they'll jump on to the next big thing to get them high profits as quickly as possible

lol this is so dismissive to the suffering of an entire planet these evil ass people just left to rot

i didnt remember that they have kenanji in this scene telling rajan what a bad idea it is to send benerit group brownshirts to attack earth. i guess it's supposed to paint him in a better light and make him seem "reasonable" or "moral" or whatever but lol no

literally everyone pretty much until almost the end of the show

i wish we'd gotten more interactions with sophie, like a flashback of her on earth with these kids would've been nice

ok i guess i forgot the fight in this ep is cool, but lmao the prodoros doesnt even have a kit at all!!!!!!! so like what was the point

damn comrade olcott rules

oh huh thats kind of interesting. whatever that thing olcott's wearing looks an awful lot like the headpiece suletta and miorine wear in the timeskip to communicate with eri. i'm guessing it's some kind of gund tech since that facilitates the use of his prosthetic arm?

*secelia voice* kashtanka woof woof

can the novels please give us more info about this lmao like we're just never going to know why the hell notrette created quiet zero

i'm really never gonna feel sorry or bad for delling, like ok you were sad your wife died and you were a controllling freak

ok sure it's finally revealed to us why he came up with this ridiculous holder system but how dumb do you have to be to do this?

i said it in an earlier post as part of my rewatch, things could have gone soooo badly for miorine. guel was physically abusive, how was that leaving your daughter in "safe hands"? someone could have become the holder and literally raped her or something

anyway i hate delling and i'll forever headcanon that even though maybe they're on amicable terms in the end, miorine probably never fully forgave him

ok on rewatch i guess this episode was better than i remembered it being. like standalone, its definitely a good episode imo, but mannnn i really really wish it ended up tying more into the actual plot than it actually did. i just really sympathize with dawn of fold lol and instead they just got kinda brushed off as being pawns of the SAL's big plan to just rearrange who was profiting off weapons sales lol

ok might do ep 16 tonight too, not sure yet

[yuriswitch]

every once in a while something shitty happens that triggers the adults affected into (rightfully) complaining about the way they were treated by some institution above or a person in power. Each time the main complaint boils down to "I was treated like an immature child that doesn't have to be asked for their thoughts or be explained things to anything at all" and usually don't actually condemn that kind of treatment as much as the fact that a Special Deciding Ubermensch of the Adult Race was the one subjected to it.

I know some people just don't mention these things out of habit or because they're too angry to pay attention to details like that, but it's always so frustrating to see people assume that the way children is treated is completely okay despite the sheer magnitude of the negative difference it makes whenever an adult ends up in that kind of position.

The fact they're expected to suddenly gain everything they were denied by the adults ordering them around is apparently perfectly logical, because having a big number of years magically bestows knowledge, skill and maturity upon you obviously. And not explaining anything to them and never asking them for opinion or just asking them at all is totally not abusive, because mature and good mommy would never do a bad thing, she loves you so much her actions can't be abusive now can they. As some particularly aggressive survivors say, abuse is when someone has the evil kind of difference and therefore isn't normal enough to not cough abuse out as if infected with it like it was some sort of a mental influenza, so I guess if the standard behavior is what normal people do then it has to be morally okay under this funky logic

And just to make sure I get to point you out for not being able to read my rant, I'm not saying here that it's okay to treat adults exactly like 2 year olds or that there should be no difference in how we act around and interact with people based on things like age or maturity in general regardless of body numbers.

What bothers me here is that the reflection "wait a minute, doesn't this imply the way we treat kids is horrible ?" practically never comes. I know most people are neurotypical in a capitalist society that makes all their tendencies towards automatic, effort and consciousness-less existence even worse, but it honestly looks like a lot of you would rather completely turn into a mechanical executor of the life algorithm bestowed upon you by your parents and teachers than actually live like a human being with personhood and awareness and ability to think and act deliberately rather than instinctively. This can't keep going on forever if we want to survive on this burning pile of violence and abuse we call Earth

/Oneesama

[giantkillerjack]

My sister-in-law frustrates me to no end even though we barely ever interact because she keeps inviting my partner to parties with her Christian Republican friends, even though my partner told her not to send an invite to us if those friends will be there. And even though my sister-in-law is bisexual!!

And then she turns around and complains about not knowing how to deal with her friends saying, like, horrible sexist stuff as though that is just some natural unavoidable quirk of having friends!

Like, these Christian Republicans she has befriended don't seem to be kind - they're not even nice a lot of the time! They don't make for good friends, and she doesn't seem happy or supported in relation to them. In fact, she basically only ever talks about how her friends and/or current boyfriend are making her unhappy!

Because here's the thing: The effect of prioritizing 'including your Trump-supporter friends at your parties' over 'being invested in creating a safe space for marginalized people in your home', is that people who DO care about creating those safe spaces... won't wanna hang out with you! Because if you invite both cats and mice to your table equally, only the cats will show!

She's so afraid of losing the shitty friends she has now that she allows them to act as barriers to accessing friends who are invested in her wellbeing in a capitalistic hellscape!

It makes me sad because she's basically trapped herself, and there's nothing I can do to offer help without either compromising my morals or making my partner's life way harder by starting shit with her family.

Like, I consider myself a good friend, yeah? I try really really hard to be one, and it matters to me immensely. I am ride-or-die for the folks I love, and I am invested in being open and vulnerable and radically safe to be around when it comes to building strong friendships that are mutually fulfilling. I have a unique talent for validating people that I have honed for years because I genuinely want to make sure people feel safe and loved and seen.

And if my sister-in-law and I were friends, I could give all of that to her. I would strive to be an example of what it looks like when someone decides to care about you and treat you right on purpose, without expecting anything in return but your mutual respect. She would be family. She would be [Queer] Family. I would see to it that she knew she could call on me when she needed a friend.

But like.

This asshole has invited me to hang out with Trump supporters on multiple occasions.

We ain't gonna be friends.

[docholligay]

There's worse things Midge can grow up to be than a tiktok influencer, right?

I mean she could be a venture capitalist or a landlord, so I guess.

I mean, I make my living on the internet so far be it from me to tell her she can't, but if she did I'd prefer she was a creative: Writer, artist, etc. Or an analyst like her papa. Even if you does like, youtube videos, which I do hate, and lives her entire life making meetings out of what could have been emails, but they're about something--history, art, etc--great!

But like, if she's just spreading bullshit on tiktok to become a spokesmodel for Shein or whatever, yeah, I'm not gonna be super proud of her. And maybe that makes me a shitty parent! But bitch I was hot at 21 too, we just didn't have TikTok so I could embarrass myself in front of thousands with tepid --you know as I'm sitting here thinking about this? The issue is I don't want her to have companies sponsor her. Once companies start sponsoring you, you have to lie in order to get more sponsorship. I don't like it, it feels greasy. Don't get me wrong, coupons, even free product, as long as you aren't chasing more free product, are I think, pretty normal for low level folks. But like..."Jewlet's cooking corner, sponsored by Hershey!" We're gonna have a fuckin fight.

Unfortunately I am not super morally flexible in some ways, and while that is in some ways a boon and laudable of me, and I am rarely (though of course I am human) a hypocrite, but in the bad way, I can see myself being like, "Am i supposed to applaud you getting 40 new pieces of clothing a year?"

But then again, I know the thing on the internet is we're supposed to support our kids no matter what, and I do not get with that exactly. If Jewlet does something for a living that opposes my values system...yes I'm going to think less of her for it?? I mean, I'm not gonna, probably, be like, "YOU CAN'T COME TO THANKSGIVING!!" but if she's taking cash from, oh fuck I don't even know who's all sponsoring that shit now, Tesla, yeah I'm not gonna act like my little baby is living my greatest dream.

And of course, this isn't easy or smooth. If she could somehow convince me that she had integrity while taking cash from, we'll go back to Hershey, great. But I'm not sure I think that could happen, depending on the company, and so, where do we make the line of profiting by bad behavior?

People are gonna come at me with this, because A) they want a bright line and B) they want to believe that unless we are Exxon itself, we are in no way responsible for our contributions to how society words (unless we're using terminology people don't like) but neither of those is true! It's a complicated tangle, but how we choose to engage with things also DOES matter.

[greatwyrmgold]

I just want to vent about my dad on a website I know he doesn't use. (He's a Reddit/Facebook man.)

These are two texts from our D&D group's groupchat. In it, Dad reacts to finding out that WotC hired the literal Pinkertons to intimidate someone who got sold the wrong trading cards by criticizing the guy who the Pinkertons intimidated.

This is typical for my dad. When these tales of corporate misdeeds happen, Dad always defends the corporations. If they are not breaking the law, he takes that as evidence that they're in the right. If they are breaking the law, he tries to downplay the severity of the crime. He's a corporate bootlicker, and I don't think he realizes it.

This bootlicking is a bit ironic, since my dad is a "Don't Tread on Me" libertarian. Well, if you asked he'd say he had disagreements with the Libertarian party, but he's never explained exactly what those disagreements are. Which is actually pretty similar to his relationship with the Republican party; Dad will say he holds Democrats and Republicans in equal disdain, but he's complained long and often about Democrats with their gun control and Obamacare and taxes. By contrast, the worst thing he's said about Donald Trump is that he doesn't protect gun rights.

Now, I don't think Dad actually agrees with the alt-right. He's voiced support for minority rights and stuff, even if it's in a milquetoast "We've basically achieved equality, and also the government shouldn't stop businesses from discriminating because the free market will put them out of business" way. But when he talks about politics, he doesn't complain about conservatives. He complains about liberals.

And he talks about politics a lot. My dad might espouse disinterest in the country's political parties, but he has strong opinions about politics. His political discussions, which he made sure to include me and my brother in, are a big part of why I care about politics as much as I do—and to his credit, he encouraged us to think for ourselves instead of just following his politics. I too was a dumbass libertarian for a while, but when I was presented with new evidence, I could change my mind.

But, well. Having a politically-opinionated dad, while being politically-opinionated in the opposite direction is a bit of a problem. And in case you didn't pick up from the way I described my dad defending WotC and also have not noticed any other political post I've made on this blog, I am firmly opposed to capitalism in general and capitalists fucking over employees (or other individuals who annoy them) in specific. So there's a bit of tension there. And I don't know what to do with it.

So far, I've mostly tried to avoid it. That's successful most of the time, but not all the time. Everything is political; even if my dad wasn't the kind of guy who talks with his kids about the president's health care policy or California gun control, politics would come up sooner or later. The friend in the group chat wasn't trying to be political; he just relayed an interesting news story relevant to the group's shared interests. But corporate malfeasance is a political issue, whether you want it to be or not. Politics are gonna come up.

I guess I could argue with him, point out that WotC's actions are morally bankrupt, no matter how legal they are. Question why making a video about some cards that you bought is grounds for getting goons sent to your house. Hell, maybe I should do that, push back against shitty political ideas. But what would the result of that be? I'd get mad, my dad would get mad, neither of us would change our minds, and it's not like the rest of the group would care.

For now, I guess I'm venting my frustrations on Tumblr. I hope that's a healthy outlet.

[mlmxreader]

As someone who loves the American Psycho book and movie. I hate that Patrick Bateman is idolized by teens and young men because Patrick is the definition of toxic masculinity. He isn’t a good person yet people put him on this pedestal and act like he’s a god. It’s so stupid. It’s one thing to like American Psycho whether the movie or the book and like Patrick in some weird twist way. But it’s another thing to think he’s the shit and start acting like him. Like why act like him. He’s a misogynistic piece of shit and there’s nothing attractive or hot about the way he acts towards women and men. Also I’m not lying when I say this but when I see people that act like him it makes me want to not be a man anymore because its so cringy and disgusting.

listen, I've read the book and watched the film more times than I can count, and while I DO make jokes about killing Jared Leto (but in all seriousness I 100% would given that Leto is a fucking vile cunt), I don't like the whole "Pat Bateman sigma male" bollocks. bc I have common sense, for starters.

the whole point of the book (written by a queer man) and the film (written & directed by a woman), is that Patrick is an irredeemable bastard in every sense of the word. he's not JUST misogynistic, he's also homophobic, transphobic, a capitalist, ableist, racist, and an elitist. the whole point of it isn't that he's a "morally grey" character, bc he ISN'T, but what he IS is a satire and, essentially, the personification of cishet White American men as a whole as well as things like privilege, wealth/capitalism in general, toxic masculinity, performative activism, and many, many other things.

the people who idolise Patrick and try to "justify" anything about him (music taste being the ONLY exception) completely miss the entire point of both the book AND the film; they entirely miss the fact that Patrick's murder spree ISN'T caused by mental illness in the slightest - it's bc he is a greedy, bigoted, wealthy man in a society that protects and excuses repulsive actions by greedy, bigoted and wealthy men. Patrick Bateman is the cops who brutalise citizens based on skin colour, he is the men who get away w assault bc they have enough money to bribe judges.

the film was, quite frankly, beautifully made. Mary Harron did an absolutely wonderful job w it and she managed to keep the core elements of both the story and the MEANING behind it, which is difficult to do at the best of times. but she DID IT!! she gave us the best adaptation of the original novel that anyone could ever ask for, and tbh, I don't think that fans of the book OR the film give her enough credit for her direction and her writing. Mary Harron did something that, in my honest opinion, no other filmmaker can do again. it is a one of a kind film, BECAUSE of her - and she ought to be recognised for it more.

the book, on the other hand, is just as good! Bret Easton Ellis did an absolutely fantastic job at providing us with a satirical, comedic, yet harrowing and disgusting novel that's engaging to read but also INCREDIBLY blatant and in-your-face with what it's trying to say. to write from someone like Bateman's view ALONE is a difficult job when you're, yk, not a shitty fucking bastard. but to write it and to be so BLATANT with saying "he's a cunt" is another feat altogether.

however, onto the sigma males bc I could honestly talk about the creators of American Psycho for YEARS.

sigma males are, quite frankly, cunts. they're transphobic, ableist, misogynistic, homophobic little bastards. they want to be "suave" and "cool" the way that Patrick PRESENTS himself (not how he IS, how he PRESENTS) whilst also making jokes that are on-par w "comedians" as vile and hateful as Ricky Gervais. this whole "he's just like me" thing w Bateman isn't bc people are genuinely having a laugh, it's bc of violent and shitty men seeing themselves within other violent and shitty men. even if that means purposefully neglecting the actual message of the material they're consuming. even if it means purposefully being ignorant towards it on every level.

"he's just like me" = "I am also violent and shitty".

and it has nothing to do w mental health, like at all. I have shit mental health! I'm fucking schizosphrenic! but I'm not violent OR shitty. why? bc I'm not a cunt.

and that's what these "sigma males" are at the end of the day. they are just cunts.

I honestly do believe that young men should turn more towards OTHER role models, such as Steve Irwin and Malcolm X.

but unfortunately this IS a side effect of society in and of itself; a society of which upholds capitalism, White supremacy, misogyny, transphobia, ableism, and other forms of cunt behaviour will only ever continue to produce more of these violent, shitty men. it didn't just come out of nowhere, it was taught and it was allowed and normalised. we need to combat it as best as we can through protests and riots and other organised acts of defiance. we HAVE to do better instead of just letting shitty violent men have their way all the time.

I don't think there's any shame in BEING a man, like, at all. and nor is there any shame in presenting in a masculine way; as long as you're not a cunt, you're probably alright. I'm not ashamed of being a man, it does nothing to help anybody to act like I hate myself - but what DOES help people is to do things for others; donate to charities such as the refugee council.

help women w buggies cross the road when they've got a load of shopping. help an old man find directions. give money to homeless people. support charities that are involved w aiding indigenous people push legislation. help your immediate and local community as best as you can, in any way that you can - even if it means, say, handing out leaflets for the socialist party or doing a bake sale for a local charity or even something as simple as offering to lend a hand when you can see someone struggling.

go to protests and actively demonstrate politically and publicly; talk openly about the things that are going on, such as the heatwave in the northern countries of Africa that's been absolutely devasting. talk about things like how the Anti-Trans movement is one of fascism AND misoginy, HELP TRANS PEOPLE! there's plenty of trans women, especially (and even more especially Black trans women, who are less likely to receive the donations and attention than White trans people), who need financial aid on social media who you can actively help by sharing and spreading their links or their gofundme or whatever!

basically: just don't be a cunt, innit? like, as long as you don't act like a cunt, you'll be fine.

[jenovacomplete]

Worker abuse is a problem with the entire gaming industry, not just Pokemon. Boycotting a game won't solve it, either. There's a good post about it here: alterdeath . tumblr . com / post / 699112724076150784/people-really-need-to-understand-the-games

mate, i'm well aware of the state of the games industry, and i don't particularly appreciate you assuming otherwise. i don't know if you meant to come off as condescending here, or if i've got too much vodka in my system, but you don't have to talk down to me like that, okay? it's shitty and rude, especially on anon -- where i can't follow up with you in dms to actually, yknow, have a conversation. you may be correct, but i'm not exactly fond of being used as a demonstration (even if that wasn't what was intended).

and yknow what? pokemon is potentially the worst fucking example you could have chosen for this argument, because yes, crunch is a cultural problem, yes, the games industry is fucked, and yes, it's the devs who get punished when games fail to sell -- except that the reason game freak are being worked like dogs is explicitly for the purpose of churning out a new $80 game right before the holidays, so parents can buy it (and some merchandise) for their kids for christmas. boycotting a single game doesn't do much to inspire cultural shifts, yeah, but yknow what keeps shit the same? selling tens of millions of copies of broken games built with soul-crushing labour. because why the hell would they re-evaluate their strategy when they're raking in record sales numbers?

and, look. i'm not boycotting the game because i think it will fix industry-wide cultural problems -- like i said, i'm well-a-fucking-ware of the problems with the games industry. i'm also very aware of how crunch culture is arguably just a symptom of a wider trend towards hyperconsumption propelled by late stage capitalist interests. but none of this was what the post was about. the post was about me feeling uncomfortable being given something that i expressly did not ask for because it was a part of that soul-crushing machine. because, shocker, i feel similarly guilty whenever i possess other games produced in similar circumstances as well. there may be no ethical consumption under capitalism, but i still have morals -- and the innate psychological need to feel in control of Something. please just let me get mad at my anti-union capitalist father being shitty in peace lmao

[olderthannetfic]

Irt people demanding boycotting of JKR, the main thing I see is people toting "JKR says that she thinks everyone who interacts with HP in a fandom sense supports her TERF-ness". But the thing is, like.... Okay so what if she thinks that?

First, no amount of fans are going to change her mind, because her TERF-ness is not a fandom problem, it is a HER problem. The thing about TERF ideology is that *everything* supports their ideology. People support HP? They support TERFs too. People don't support HP? People are being pressured into virtue signalling but secretly agree with her.

Second, so what if she THINKS HP fan = TERF? She's wrong. She's factually incorrect. She is, in fact, not saying the truth. We know she is wrong about a lot of things. Let her think whatever she wants. Like I said before, whether or not people are HP fans won't change her mind.

Third, whether or not you choose to buy a product is not activism. "Voting with your dollar" and protesting through what you buy is not a valid form of activism; choosing whether you will buy something based on your own values will not make the capitalist oligarchs stop their capitalist oligarchy. Believing that you can "vote with your dollar" is itself validating the capitalist system. Are you morally wrong for not wanting to buy HP stuff? No, I don't want to buy any more HP stuff myself. But it doesn't make you morally right either.

You cannot force someone to change their minds, you can only set boundaries and consequences. Fans and fandom cannot make her not be a TERF. Not even Warner Brothers turning their backs on the Fantastic Beasts movies will stop her (though I will say it is funny). Only JKR can change JKR's mind, and only JKR can control her own actions. We can hope that consequences make JKR change her actions, if not her views, but we can't count on it.

(an aside: I feel like demanding people to boycott HP is so people can have an easy way to identify a TERF. And I understand: it sucks to have to second guess everything because TERFs coach their words to appeal to others, draw them in, and indoctrinate them. But just like TERFs will pretend they're not TERFs to trick others, you will have HP TERF fans who pretend they are not HP fans and you will have TERFs who were never HP fans to begin with. Then, both groups can point to their fan status and say: "I'm not a TERF! I don't support JKR!" There is no easy way to identify a shitty person because shitty people lie.)

--

You absolutely can vote with your dollar if what you're trying to do is signal that transphobia is bad for business rather than that you hate capitalism.

But yes, simplistic anti-HP stuff will not do anything about the massive TERF problem in fandom and outside of it.

[transmasc-wizard]

Hi I know u like just shared some symbolism from your WIPs but. I saw u said there is More,,,,, and I love symbolism so much so if there's more u would like to share, I'd love to hear it 👀👀

hello there IS more and i am 100% glad to share

rain!! in Rose Librarians!! every time it rains, the relationship between Charlie and Eleanor changes. the first time, Charlie and Eleanor goof off together, instead of being angry and awkward. The second time, Eleanor agrees to work with Charlie to fix the library and stop the monsters, deepening the connection. The third time is the climax of the story, where Charlie and Eleanor agree to help each other truly heal instead of just pretending.

More GFS Foils, bc I love those. Angel is self-preserving and to the point it's maladaptive and hurts them, and Rowan is self-sacrificing and loyal to the point it hurts others. They both are trying to do things "right", but take it way too far.

the books Oliver re-reads can give you some insight into his emotional state! whenever he re-reads his sister's favourite book, you Know he is having unfun brain times, when he re-reads his favourite book he's stressed out, and when he reads his giant textbook about dragons, he's in a rlly good mood. this is consistent across All Five Books because i feel like it

James wearing similar sunglasses to Mack but ironically symbolizes how he's more detached than the rest of them. Mack's sunglasses are directly connected to their emotional & mental state; James' are just... a joke. He refuses to get too deep into anything he feels, and this Will be a point in the VS Sequel i have stewing in my brain (it was supposed to be a standalone,,,)

birds around Hope means godly thoughts are happening, and godly thoughts happening means the abuse metaphor is back ! every time Hope sits and thinks about just how shit their life in the godly realm was, they're surrounded by some type of bird. The most important time this happens, they're near the bird they invented. When they go back to their old home... well. there are birds everywhere >:)

the monster in NT21 is a metaphor for hurting other people to feel better, hence... *gestures to the murder*

The amount of guilt Ace is feeling over being gay will directly relate to the amount of guilt Thalia is feeling over being dead. it's not their fault it's morally neutral and it's something they WILL have to make peace with but they Don't Want To

in DAT, the more cruel and self-centered Nathaniel gets, the less he wears his worker uniform/the more he dresses like the rich capitalists around him.

The Other Ones..... sunlight in a haunted forest is not an invitation of safety. sunlight in a haunted forest represents everything else pretending to be something it is not. that sunlight is unsafe, that man is a monster, Astrophel is not a god but a man and that will catch up to him

on a related note. that one probably didn't make sense but this might: there is very much Icarus symbolism in The Other Ones. Astrophel is oh so curious. Icarus begins to fly. Astrophel feels he can do anything. Icarus gets closer to the sun. Astrophel is trying to be god. Icarus's wax wings are melting. Astrophel forgets he is mortal. Icarus is starting to fall. Astrophel is not sure whether he is man or monster. Icarus has hit the ocean. (Stuff like that, but. yk. drawn out across the book.)

addiction cw: this is a less obvious one i think, but in GFS, for the first 2 books, Corey is addicted to this shitty magic energy drink. (It lets him stay up, and staying up lets him create, and creating lets him stay sane.) in book 3, he's forced away from it. He's also forced away from a lot of other things that are bad for him. But when he gets it back--and those other things, too--he has to struggle with whether or not to use it again. (Does he go back to what's hurt him? He can escape... but now that it's available, does he really want to?)

there is. probably M o r e. but it is getting late and brain is shutting off so that is all :D

[bitchesgetriches]

Hi bitches, I'm a bit nervous to ask this but I'm being genuine I promise. I don't want you to think I'm some biggoted old fool.

Could you please help me understand how sex work isn't exploitative? I hear a lot of people saying "it's just the same as normal work, it's better than my job at Amazon/target/wherever and no one is calling that work exploitative" or "well you wouldn't do YOUR job if you didn't have to either" but like, checkout work IS hella exploitative??? Most work IS hella bullshit that only exists to feed the capitalist machine. I DO fight for a world where work is a choice. I understand why The Right would love onlyfans, but why is The Left lining up to defend it?

Sex work - especially things like onlyfans - is overwhelmingly done by the poor or as a way to escape poverty ("I was being paid shit in my previous job, now I can afford an apartment" is something I hear a lot). But in doing so it transfers all the risks to them, it's essentially turning sex work into the gig/hustle economy, isn't it? You end up on a zero hour contract with no union, health, benefit, maternity protection, in a job that can be hella dangerous and have serious emotional repercussions and requires huge emotional labour and/or disconnect and I don't really understand why we're just cheering this along?

I don't object on moral grounds. Sex is sex. Consenting adults do what you want. People are well within their moral and legal rights to choose to sell sex, (or the emotional labour that comes with it), or photos, or whatever they want - just like they are free to go work for target. I absolutely understand the need to - and support - decriminalisation of sex work, the need to make it safe and secure for sex workers, but I just can't see why ~the world at large~ sees huge numbers of young 18 year old women being herded and encouraged into joining Onlyfans - in several cases with people saying "can't wait for you to turn 18 so you can have an OF" so the patriarchy can pay £3-4 a month to see their tits and people cheer this along? One or two get rich, I'm sure, but who is getting REALLY rich? It's the old white men that own onlyfans and take a 20% cut, as always. It's the patriarchy working as it always has. Allowing one or two women to succeed while holding the rest down for exploitation. Except now it's mixing with the worst bits of 21st C capitalism, too. Surely all OnlyFans is is Uber for Sex work, using the gig economy to de-unionise and isolate workers, strip them of benefits, make them into independent contractors and profit off them?

Sure, it's a step up from kidnapping girls from Romania to have them do porn, but is that really the bar? Can we maybe just stop for a second and imagine a world where rich white men don't get richer off the emotional and physical labour of women? Where the other available work options aren't so shit that a zero-hour career with no employment protections, a limited lifespan, in a dangerous industry doesnt look like heaven in comparison? Sure, you can work for three years, sell your emotional labour, and pay for college. But why are we cheering that instead of asking why this has to happen in the first place? We're fiddling around the edges of the system, giving it a makeover, and rebadging it "female empowerment" instead of actually changing anything fundamental. Poor women sell sex. A few are allowed to break out. Men get to leer at naked women for pennies a year. Rich men get richer. Plus ça change. Not even to mention that because of the ~emotional~ connection that onlyfans gives beyond porn, we're embedding the idea that women are "money in, girlfriend out" machines. I know several girls that won't even *talk* to men in any situation without a minimum $50 fee. And apparently the fact we also have a crisis of men so lonely they're willing to pay this isn't a problem either? Where's our luxury communism dreams bitches?

Bitches, I trust you. What am I missing?

I don’t think you’re a bigoted old fool. Nor a prude! I think you’re incredibly enlightened about the dangers of unfettered capitalism and labor exploitation.

Almost all of the issues you highlight about exploitative sex work can be said about exploitative labor in any industry. Poor people taking shitty jobs that don’t pay enough and enrich capitalist, patriarchal corporate overlords? That happens all over the world in industries from meat packing to clothing sweat shops to, yes, sex work. The exploitation of a person’s body for labor is an ethical stain on our culture at large. It’s why we’re so in favor of labor rights advances including a higher minimum wage, unions, and humane work environments. 

Raising the Minimum Wage Would Make Our Lives Better 

Are Unions Good or Bad? 

Coronavirus Reveals America’s Pre-existing Conditions, Part 1: Healthcare, Housing, and Labor Rights 

Sex work is not unique in that it opens desperate and poor people up to labor exploitation. It’s not even uniquely dangerous to the bodies of workers--John Oliver did a bit on the US meat packing industry recently that made me faint with body horror. 

So we agree that labor exploitation is bad. And it’s something that we should work towards ending in every industry. But I can see why some people would view exploitative sex work to be a different kind of bad. Because sex is sensitive! It can be used to punish and hurt. See revenge porn and the way synonyms for “sex worker” are stigmatized and used as insults throughout society. 

Now, a few clarifications. When I refer to sex work, I’m not just talking about cam work on OnlyFans. There are lots of other outlets for many different kinds of sex work. And I’m also not just talking about women sex workers. People of all gender identities and sexualities do sex work, and we should advocate for fair labor practices and safety for all of them. I am firmly pro- decriminalizing sex work so that the industry can be made safe, regulated, and destigmatized in an effort to reduce exploitation. I want sex workers to have the power of collective bargaining! I want them to be protected by law enforcement and our justice system, instead of targeted by it! I want them to pay taxes and have the privileges associated with all tax paying workers! I want them to have the power and protection of a regulatory industry that will purge abusive and violent clients from their field!

I also disagree with the characterization that choosing sex work freely, even out of desperation, is a “step up from kidnapping a girl from Romania to have them do porn.” Human trafficking is not sex work. It’s slavery and torture. Even when the choice is between making $7.25 an hour working at WalMart and making $7.25 as a cam girl, there’s still a choice involved, even if it’s a shitty one. There’s consent. Trafficking victims have no choice, no consent, only violence. 

I honestly don’t want to start a debate here. We’re all on the same page that labor exploitation is bad. So I’ll just end with this: not all sex work is inherently exploitative. Which I guess is your real question!

I’ve mentioned before that I have friends who are former sex workers. Specifically strippers and a specialty dominatrix. As with any job, they had their ups and downs, their good nights and bad nights. But they all agree that they freely chose the work not out of desperation or a lack of other options. And they even enjoyed the work in some cases. If someone prefers sex work, thrives in giving that emotional labor to others, I’m not going to judge and I’m certainly not going to tell them they’re being exploited. It would frankly be insulting, condescending, to tell someone that their choice of work (when it truly is a choice) is bad for them. 

It’s a fine line, but the line does exist. Sex work CAN BE exploitative. But it is not inherently exploitative, as far as I’m concerned. 

[ghost-shipping]

The idea that the only thing you can do when you find out that an author or creator has bigoted views is to immediately stop reading their works feels incredibly infantilizing to me. There seems to be the idea that people are incapable to not be influenced by any reflection of the creators views in their works and therefore it would be dangerous to continue reading it. Which is silly, not everyone has opinions so fragile that they're immediately are going to swayed into changing their beliefs. If there is reason to worry we should just train ourselves to recognize toxic ideas in fiction and why they are bad. But there seems to be an utter lack of confidence in other people's critical thinking skills. How did we get here?!

I think a part of the fear of consuming art made by a shitty person is actually the overwhelmingly prevalent idea of voting with your money/attention in capitalist society. That you should simply abstain from media made by people you dislike to not support them. And this has only been ticked up to the nth degree now that progressive media analysis and critique of what public figures do with their platforms are more prevalent. Prior to the puritan argument there was already a concept that you shouldn't support people you fundamentally disagree with but now people with no idea of how individuals actually engage with media have expanded it to mean this kind of impure media is going to infect you to be just like the less than stellar creator. Which is honestly ridiculous because a) consuming this media without supporting a creator directly is always an option, and b) the vast majority of people who like media made by someone problematic who might have put shitty things in their art do not like it for the shitty things Personally, as someone who read the majority of Harry Potter books in school, I'm insulted at the idea that touching it again automatically makes me transphobic and antisemetic regardless of how critical I am. That I am unable to sit in my own home with books and movies I already own and have for years and enjoy them without being intellectually and morally tainted by them. This kind of shaming also does nothing to deplatform Rowling, which is the only real solution to her behavior, and instead focuses on trying to control what other regular people feel comfortable doing in their free time. Nobody I know likes Harry Potter for the goblins, or treatment of house elves, or the vaguely transphobic one off journalist antagonist. They like it for a variety of other factors and as adults are able to notice things that are either logically inconsistent or morally questionable on behalf of the author because they have critical thinking skills.

[ciudaddelapazmp3]

So I'm all for questioning and calling out problematic behaviour but it's literally so easy to cancel someone these days. I could just go and say "[X] IS A PEDOPHILE! HE SEXUALISED THIS CHARACTER WHO IS CANONICALLY UNDERAGE!", conveniently ignoring that the character was drawn to look more mature, that the fact they're underage isn't mentioned in the actual show and that [X]'s "sexualization" was limited to exclaiming "Oh, they're so cute!" upon seeing them for the first time.

But the rumour that [X] is a pedo is already out there, and when such strong language is used and the situation is completely stripped from context, especially in a platform like this where a lot of people assume everyone here is "woke", knowledgeable and well-intended, it's so easy to just believe it instead of taking some time to do some research.

And I'm not saying you're bad if you've ever done this, or that you should get super involved in every single "cancelled" situation to make sure you have an informed opinion on everytjing that's ever happened, or that shitty celebrities don't exist. I just think it's important to keep in mind that not all info you read on the Internet is true, that it's impossible for a text to be 100% unbiased and informed, and that even when the person that's being called out has done some problematic shit, immediately cancelling them usually isn't the way to go. None of us was born 100% woke: on the contrary, we were all socialized in an patriarchal, heterocisnormative, late-capitalist and overall very confusing world of often grey and grey morality and as such we're bound to get some stuff wrong from time to time. There's a difference between someone who's well-intended and willing to learn and someone who's a consistently shitty person, and I feel like we tend to (understandably, but not rightfully) assume the worst in all cases and that it isn't the way to go.